Herring v. United States case brief summary
129 S. Ct. 695 (2009)
CASE FACTS
The lower court concluded that the error in failing to update the computer database to reflect the recall of the arrest warrant was negligent, not reckless or deliberate. That negligent error was not enough, by itself to require the extreme sanction of exclusion under the Fourth Amendment. Assuming that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred when defendant was arrested on the recalled arrest warrant, the exclusionary rule did not apply as the error that occurred arose from nonrecurring and attenuated negligence. It was far removed from the core concerns that led to the exclusionary rule's adoption. To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct had to be sufficiently deliberate such that exclusion could meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence was worth the price paid by the justice system. In this case, the miscommunications were not routine or widespread; they were not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was affirmed. 5-4 Decision; 2 Dissents.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
129 S. Ct. 695 (2009)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant's motion to suppress
evidence, which was based on the ground that his initial arrest was
illegal because the warrant had been rescinded, was denied. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
decision, holding that the evidence was admissible under the good
faith rule. The petition for certiorari was granted to resolve a
conflict among the circuits.CASE FACTS
The lower court concluded that the error in failing to update the computer database to reflect the recall of the arrest warrant was negligent, not reckless or deliberate. That negligent error was not enough, by itself to require the extreme sanction of exclusion under the Fourth Amendment. Assuming that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred when defendant was arrested on the recalled arrest warrant, the exclusionary rule did not apply as the error that occurred arose from nonrecurring and attenuated negligence. It was far removed from the core concerns that led to the exclusionary rule's adoption. To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct had to be sufficiently deliberate such that exclusion could meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence was worth the price paid by the justice system. In this case, the miscommunications were not routine or widespread; they were not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was affirmed. 5-4 Decision; 2 Dissents.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment